- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 28,161
- Reaction score
- 7,435
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Posters use "restructure" to mean two very different things.
Some us the term to mean pushing compensation to future years, usually by moving salary and/or a roster bonus into a signing bonus. Players only rarely have an issue with this since they have no reduction in compensation. Sometimes the team throws in an extra $1M because they need to the cap money so badly. Yes, I think that Wilfork would move most of his roster bonus and salary into a new signing bonus.
Others use "restructure" to mean that the player should take a pay cut. This is entirely different. Some folks are suggesting this for Wilfork, Mayo, Amendola, Arrington and Browner.
The team and Wilfork spent a lot of time re-negotiating before the 2014 season. Wilfork has done his job. I don't see him taking a pay cut. I think he'd rather pay for the same money for someone else than take a voluntary pay cut before free agency starts.
Would love to see all of our players back, but that is not realisitc....I think our first two orders of priority are obviuosly Revis and McCourty. I really like Vereen, just not sure if we will be able to afford him.
I think Mayo, Wilfork and Amendola should and will be restructured.
A restucture isn't a pay cut, though it could include a paycut.
The decision will be made before free agency starts.I hope I'm wrong, but I simply cannot fathom Wilfork accepting a restructure, whether it's a cut in pay or not.
I think if the Pats won't pay him what he's due this year, they talk to him and when he growls back, they release him.